New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-01-23
THE ARCHBISHOP and DR. NGLYNM

| ObScuI1ty which has rested upon INC relauohs
between the preate and DR.. McGlynn, but 1t
cannot be said that it explains the resolute re-
| fusal of the latter to obey the summons either
Of the Propaganda or of the Pope. The pub
LEGATION of the main facts, and Of so much Of
the correspondence as bears directly upon them,
dissipates the rumors which have been in cir
culation to the effect that the Archbishop had
acted hanhly or despOtically in the premises.
So far from this being the case, it is made
plain that the head of the diocese proceeded
most cautiously and gently; that he is in no
way responsible for the summons to Rome
that he has given DR. McGlynn ample oppor-
tunities to purge himself Of his contumacy
and that he has even endured what can only
he characterized rs dsObediencc indistingtIlsh-
able from mutiny with tolerant patience and
good temper by no means reciprocatcd.
1t is not necessary to await any further
comments DR.. McGlynn may choose to make
upon the Archbshop's statement to arrive at
a conclusion regarding the central point in
this case All doubt on that point is removed
by Dr. McGlynn's brief explanation on
another page, as well as by his ex-
plicit, unambguous and final declara-
ton to the Archbishop in his letter dated
December 20, 1886. In that communl-
cation the priest informs his spiritual superior
that he means to continue teaching the doctrine
that private ownership in land is wrong, and
that the confscation of all landed property is
right. Now that is doctrine concerning the
character of which there is happily little room
for doubt 1t is, in fact, an immoral doctrine;
so immoral doctrine that not only the Church
of Rome but every other Church, and not only
all Churches but all Governments, and not only
all Governments but all schools of philosophy
recognizing any ethical principles. must unite
in condcmning and rejecting it, In fact, If
Dr. McGlynn had told the Archbishop that he
intended to teach so long as he lived, the JUS
tee and expedency Of highway robbery. or
burglary, or pocket-pcking, he could hardly
have announced more radical departure from
the rules of conduct which laymen no less than
ecclesiastics have held to as alike just and
necessary since the beginnings of ordered So
ciety.
DR.. McGlynn's precise language in his letter
to his Archbishop. dated December 20, 1856,
refusing to 60 to Rome, was as follows:
Ihave taught and shall continue 10 teach, in speeches
and writings long Ilce that land Is rghtfuly the
property OF the people In and private owner
ship OF land is against natural justice no matter 6y rhaf
cirA or ecclesiastical aics may be sanctioned; and
would bring about instantly II could. such change OF
laws all the world over. would confscate private
property in land ,cio penny Of compensation 10 TIE
ptiscalod owners.
That the Church to which DR.. McClynn be-
longed should protest against the course taken
by him was inevitable; and the more so mas
much as his active participation in politics as
the champion of fagranty immoral doctrine
and discrcdted the hierarchy.
1t is incontestable that his priosuy Office count
ed for something in the Mayoralty canvass, and
that in so far us il counted for anything his
presence and his utteranccs implied an in
dorsement or liberation which he was OK
pressly forbidden 10 offer, which he could not
offer. however indirectly, without being guilty
of something graver even than flat dlsobcdi-
ence to his diocesan and 10 his Church.
Now, when q man in pricstly orders becomes
convinced that it is his duty to teach doctrines
which his Church condemns and rprobates
there is only one honorable course open TO him.
He cannot possibly justify himself in remain
ing in a church against one OF the teachings Of
which he is determined to do constant battle.
TO employ the influence which his ecclesiastical
position gives him to advance doctrines disap-
proved by the Church would be both impos-
sible and indefensible. Nor can tho Church,
or any Church, hesitate in case Of the kind.
TO do so would clearly be to destroy discipline
and accord and to invite anarchy and con-
fusion. Dr. McGynn had right TO adopt any
ideas about property in land which were ac-
ceptabe to him. lie had a right to advocate
those ideas. But no could not have right
TO hold OF to champion them In his capacity
as Catholic priest. Considering tho nature
Of his offence and the hardihood with which
he declared his purpose to repeat 1t indefinitely,
the course taken by Archbishop Corigan must
be regarded as singularly ndulgent, and it is
evident that conflict resting upon such
clear question Of discipline and subordination
can have but one issue.
And yet there will he great sympathy for
DR.. McGlynn, and an earnest hope that some
way out of his present situation may he found
that shall still leave him a wide field Of useful
ness Many things combine TO bespeak
feeling Of unusual kindness for him. He is
a product of our common schools and grad
uatc. if we are not mistaken, of the old Free
Academy. lie has always encouraged the COM
mon school system, and has never taken part
in any warfare upon it. He has been most
faithful and efficient pastor, and has gathered
together great congregation who believe in
him implicitly. and seem ready to follow him
to the end. He has had great sympathy with
tho virtuous poor, and has unsel6shly given
his best efforts to their advancement. He !
has shown firm belief in the foundation prin-
ciple of our institutions, local self-gOvern-
ment. and has had patriots eagerness
to see the same principle developed
in Home Rule for Ireland. These
are traits Americans Of whatever faith neces-
sarily respect. They would be glad to see DIR.
McGynn well out of his troubles.
THE NEXT SENATE
The election Of Mr. Paddock as Senator